Is the Electoral College Consistent with Democratic Values?
The following some may already have seen, but in light of having little to post about, I thought I'd see what everyone's opinion is on the topic.
When the Electoral College was created, it was an entirely different time-period and the U.S. was an entirely different country. In order to understand the Founding Fathers’ reasoning behind the Electoral College one must understand the difficulties of electing a president in a nation that had only about 4,000,000 people spread across thousands of miles on the east coast. Poor communication was also an issue making it impractical to campaign nationally. It was also thought that the uneducated would not be able to make a good decision between candidates and that it should be left to the educated. There was a fear that people would not receive sufficient information about a candidate outside the state leading to people voting for someone from their state or region. As a result, it is possible that the president would be elected by the state with the largest population. Thus, the Electoral College was created and has evolved to what it is today, though the problems the Electoral College was created to solve have all but gone out of existence.
Despite the fact that purpose of the Electoral College no longer exists, it still remains as our method of electing a president and has created many problems of its own. Those that are called “Faithless” Electors, or those who have been elected to be electors, but do not vote for who won the majority of the popular vote, have indeed voted against the majority. This has happened 18 times. In each case, however it has not changed the outcome of the election. For example, in the 2004 election, John Kerry won the popular vote in Minnesota, but one elector voted for John Edwards for president. Another instance happened in the 1988 election when George Bush Sr. was running. In West Virginia, one of the five electors switched her vote. The fact that this happens at all is a problem.
In addition, the Electoral College violates political equality. Small states end up being disproportionately powerful, in that candidates of the losing party are thrown away. In addition, each voter’s vote does not have an equal weight. In Texas, a person’s vote would be something like 1/30,000,000, whereas in Wyoming a person’s vote would be more like 1/150,000. The proportionality of election points versus population is not equal either. Why does this violate political equality? The voter’s votes do not have equal weight, which goes against one oft the fundamental values of the Constitution: equality.
The Electoral College also does not guarantee majority rule; it can choose the popular vote loser. There have been five instances that the electoral vote has given the victory to the popular vote loser: 1824, 1876, 1888, 1960, and 2000. If a candidate for president was to campaign in the 11 largest states and he got just one vote more than half of the total votes in each of those states, he/she would get 271 electoral votes, but only 27% of the popular vote. Is that political equality? Is that a clear representation of the entire voter-eligible population?
There are three possible alternatives: Proportional Plan, District Plan, or Direct Election. In the Proportion Plan, instead of “winner-take-all,” it would be proportional to the popular vote. This would permit state-split electors. In the District Plan, the president would be decided by who won the popular vote in each Congressional election in each state. This also would permit state-split electors and a result in 3rd-party candidates winning House seats. The Proportional and District Plans would not require an amendment, but would be somewhat closer to political equality. The third suggestion would be a Direct Election. This plan would require an amendment to the Constitution, but it eliminates any political inequality. It will also prevent the election from ever having to go to the House. This would clear up most if not all of the issues and problems with the current Electoral College. So obviously, Direct Election is the only true politically equal alternative to the current system.
When the Electoral College was created, it was an entirely different time-period and the U.S. was an entirely different country. In order to understand the Founding Fathers’ reasoning behind the Electoral College one must understand the difficulties of electing a president in a nation that had only about 4,000,000 people spread across thousands of miles on the east coast. Poor communication was also an issue making it impractical to campaign nationally. It was also thought that the uneducated would not be able to make a good decision between candidates and that it should be left to the educated. There was a fear that people would not receive sufficient information about a candidate outside the state leading to people voting for someone from their state or region. As a result, it is possible that the president would be elected by the state with the largest population. Thus, the Electoral College was created and has evolved to what it is today, though the problems the Electoral College was created to solve have all but gone out of existence.
Despite the fact that purpose of the Electoral College no longer exists, it still remains as our method of electing a president and has created many problems of its own. Those that are called “Faithless” Electors, or those who have been elected to be electors, but do not vote for who won the majority of the popular vote, have indeed voted against the majority. This has happened 18 times. In each case, however it has not changed the outcome of the election. For example, in the 2004 election, John Kerry won the popular vote in Minnesota, but one elector voted for John Edwards for president. Another instance happened in the 1988 election when George Bush Sr. was running. In West Virginia, one of the five electors switched her vote. The fact that this happens at all is a problem.
In addition, the Electoral College violates political equality. Small states end up being disproportionately powerful, in that candidates of the losing party are thrown away. In addition, each voter’s vote does not have an equal weight. In Texas, a person’s vote would be something like 1/30,000,000, whereas in Wyoming a person’s vote would be more like 1/150,000. The proportionality of election points versus population is not equal either. Why does this violate political equality? The voter’s votes do not have equal weight, which goes against one oft the fundamental values of the Constitution: equality.
The Electoral College also does not guarantee majority rule; it can choose the popular vote loser. There have been five instances that the electoral vote has given the victory to the popular vote loser: 1824, 1876, 1888, 1960, and 2000. If a candidate for president was to campaign in the 11 largest states and he got just one vote more than half of the total votes in each of those states, he/she would get 271 electoral votes, but only 27% of the popular vote. Is that political equality? Is that a clear representation of the entire voter-eligible population?
There are three possible alternatives: Proportional Plan, District Plan, or Direct Election. In the Proportion Plan, instead of “winner-take-all,” it would be proportional to the popular vote. This would permit state-split electors. In the District Plan, the president would be decided by who won the popular vote in each Congressional election in each state. This also would permit state-split electors and a result in 3rd-party candidates winning House seats. The Proportional and District Plans would not require an amendment, but would be somewhat closer to political equality. The third suggestion would be a Direct Election. This plan would require an amendment to the Constitution, but it eliminates any political inequality. It will also prevent the election from ever having to go to the House. This would clear up most if not all of the issues and problems with the current Electoral College. So obviously, Direct Election is the only true politically equal alternative to the current system.
posted by cpuaggie at 6:59 PM
9 Comments:
Interesting! Very interesting!
hey i will be able to vote next time..thats kinda cool. i don't know what ya'll are talking about, but im sure its good!
First of all, the fact that a Direct Election would constitute a departure from Republican Democracy to Pure Democracy is irrelevant. What matters is if something constitutes a misrepresentation of the U.S. population (or at least the ones that vote). Secondly, the fact that candidates would only go to large populous states doesn't matter. Currently, does a candidate not usually focus on big cities? They do much more frequently than not. In the long run, still the candidate with the most votes would win and as an added bonus, prevent any misrepresentation!
Say, a Republican lives in CA. He/she is discouraged from voting because more likely than not, their vote will be pointless. Therefore, many don't even vote because obviously, CA always goes to the Democrat candidate. If a vote counted nationally and wasn't going to be thrown away by the "winner-take-all" EC system, he/she would be much more likely to vote, which in turn would increase the number of voters, which in turn would create a more equal and true representation of the U.S. voter-eligible population.
Is it not that the EC is supposed to represent the majority of the voter-eligible population? Why should that change with a DE?
As stated in my post, a DE would constitute political equality which is one of the fundamental values of the Constitution.
''Equality of constitutional right and power is the condition of all the States of the Union, old and new.''
-Escanaba Co. v. Chicago
Mr. Speaker Justinian,
I rise to give my support to the Electoral College. There are fifty separate elections (not counting Washington, D.C.) for President. Each state holds its own election. This is part of federalsim and the checks and balances system. Your vote as a Texan isn't worth less than that of a Wyomingan. You vote in the Texas election. Whichever candidate (or slate of electors) that receives the most votes wins. The same process happens in Wyoming and Rhode Island. Remember what Heggs said. Each state is entitled to two senators.
What would happen to the smaller states if they lost this equal representation in the Senate? They would be more likely subjected to the wills of more populous states. The states, though united, are still separate entities.
Also, we are a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. Even though my words may seem feebly written in great haste, I implore you to take heed before you advocate abolishing the Electoral College.
Simply because the EC violates "equality of constitutional right and power" in that the EC does not allow every citizen to be equally counted in the presidential election. Refer back to paragraph three of my original post about a voter's vote's weight in different states. DE would right it because it is a clear and equal representation. I thought I had made at least that clear.
The EC was not created with the intent of sustaining a Republican Democracy. I've already listed many of the reasons it was created, none of which include that as a reason.
We can debate jots and tittles until Doomsday. It all comes down to whether or not we should use a flawed system that has at times misrepresented the U.S. population (which, as mentioned before violates the fundamental Constitutional value of equality). Or we can go with a system that does represent equality and the only flaws I can foresee (correct me if I'm wrong) beyond the debate of whether or not we should keep the EC on the bases of maintaining a Republican Democracy, are the obvious flaws with any election, such as voting scandals.
Other than that......
I might also point out as a side note that you quoted Alexander Hamilton who was rather attracted to the idea of having a unitary government.
Justinian,
Whether or not Hamilton favored a unitarian government is not the point, because that position did not prevail. Do you think the states' senators should be apportioned by population to be more democratic. Do you think it undemocratic that Wyoming and Rhode Island have the same number of senators as California and New York?
Do you think your vote for Texas' senators are worth less than that of a Rhode Islander voting for his senators?
Would you prefer that candidates bypass small states all together to flock even more eagerly to New York City and Chicago?
I repeat, sir, we are a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. The vote for president is counted as each state's preference, not the whole peoples per se. In fact, why don't we all just elect 100 senators at large, instead of just two from each state. Wouldn't that reflect the will of the people in a more democratic fashion? Would not that make everyone's vote more equal?
Justin, I regret to learn of the ill-effect that college life is having upon your political theory. It seems that your professors and peers have contaminated your mind with the false supposition that the EC does not "represent America."
What is America? You seem to view her is a single body politic composed of a mixed mass of "individuals." I believe that this misapprehension is the root of your error. This country is a "federal republic." That is to say that it a union of states based on republican principles. The descriptive term "federal" implies a political connection founded upon compact between several independent and sovereign States. (That is to say, they are not mere provinces of a greater political entity, or smaller units of a single political unit or body politic--they are the constituent components.) By republican, we mean that the political institutions of these several states, and the institutions of our federal government, are based upon the people of "representative democracy." While democracy connotes the idea of "rule by the people," we yet affirm that indirect rule by the people produces the most successful results. This is republicanism. (If you need proof of this, then I would recommend that you consult the FEDERALIST PAPERS.)
If you understand the NATURE of our union, that the CONSTITUENTS are not INDIVIDUALS but STATES then you cannot help but agree that the proposition we have set forth is true. (To divide the vote of the people of a state, would be like dividing the vote of an individual--um, I'm 50% for Bush, 30% for Gore, and 20% for Nader--in local elections.) The idea of dividing the constituent into pieces is absurd, and the authors of the Federalist, and the debators in the several state ratifcations very eloquent expound the reasons it would be.
As others have asked: Would you also support the annihilation of LEGISLATIVE REPRSENTATION? It is based upon the same system: the presidential selection method is a compound of both. It allots the sum of a State's total House represenation and Senate representation as its total number of electors in that State's EC. If you are consistent, you must support BOTH the annihilation of the SENATORIAL selection method, and the HOUSE method--as both discriminate according to state population. (yes, the House too: Some less populous states, as things work out, have a higher/lower number of persons represented by each Rep in Congress, due to State lines, etc.)But, as Seth noticed, of particular note is the SENATE? would you really desire to throw out of orbit this entire system by this sort of radical rejiggering?
The real question is, are were merely desirous that the President achieve a only a bare numerical majority? Is that the only prerequisite we require? Or do we insist upon a representation that is truly reflective of America, as a whole? From each region and area? Are we prepaid to accomplish the final overthrow of Federalism and embark upon a mad new adventure which is almost certain to terminate in calamity? Or, shall we simply stick the tried and proven method: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
I have not elucidated upon the arguments set forth by Tara Ross. I have approached from a different angle (though she does touch on the consistency of the EC with the federal nature of our system.) I would highly recommend that you carefully peruse the pages of that book before you embark upon any more insane rampages against this cherished American institution. "Enlightened Democracy" is almost certain to remove the cloud of ignorance which now envelopes your mind...you WILL emerge "enlightened." It is a great read.
I hate to be the one to spoil the party, but all of you thoroughly defeated me as D.A. After talking to several Political Science professors, I wanted everyone to know what we're up against. Most of the arguments I used were word-for-word arguments they used in support of abolishing the Electoral College. I would love to see ya'll go up against these people. I think it would be one of the few times you'd see them stumped.
I will say, however "Jack" that I am somewhat surprised you would accuse me of allowing myself to fall victim to my professors and peers in this matter. If I truly believed what I said as D.A., it would be a stand I made on my own, not as a result of the "ill-effect" of the college life. I'm not so intellectually weak as to allow myself to be "contaminated by fall supposition."
Anyways, bravo! I hope we all learned a lesson from this.
Good man, Justinian,
You played a good DA's part. From what I know of you and from what I've heard of you, it seemed a bit inconsistent and odd that you would take such a position. Bravo and good tidings!
Post a Comment
<< Home